Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Highly interesting facade detail drawing! (one more explanation about why it happened!)

please look at this drawing FACADE SECTION of Grenfell refurbishment cladding of the facade

as I discovered that it explains a lot about why the fire happened!

see there:

• the brutalist-type facade made of prefabricated (pre-cast) reinforced concrete from the 1970-ies.
• the exact way the cladding was planned over the old facade
• the position of the NEW WINDOWS!

the windows are, according to the best practice in isolation of buildings, placed IN THE SAME PLANE as the PIR isolation plates.

This means, as soon as this isolation started to burn, that the windows were much more easy to be destroyed by the fire, as they are not recessed (as the original ones were!) and not mounted INTO the gaps of the non-burning concrete facade.

Also, the isolation is partially entering the interior of the flats (with those little "fingers" embracing the parapet of the existing building!), which is termically wonderful and correct, but also allows the fire to spread rapdly in the inside of the building.

If the windows were made out of plastic frames, then they were probably combusted in shortest time, leaving the way free for the heat and flames to enter the flats.

I am no specialist in fires, but I consider that this kind of architectural detail was, together with the use of flammable materials, the main problem that lead to the tragedy! --Horia mar (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that even when we are professionals in a given field, we may not introduce our own personal analyses into articles. We must wait until reliable sources discuss the detailing of the retrofit. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research should be submitted to the public inquiry into the fire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed on the WP:OR aspect. I also agree that the above diagram appears to show that the compartmentalisation is both seriously compromised and that flammable material appears to actually cross the compartmentalisation boundary. What it does not tell us is if that is actually "as built". It does match one of the things I read somewhere, that the new windows were fitted over the existing windows (with the cladding install), and the original windows later removed from inside and the gaps made good. In the planning process, it's not unusual for there to be many iterations, especially around the finer details, so it needs analysis and verification (by an independent RS) that the diagram actually represents what was physically there at the time of the fire. I note that the URL for the diagram is express.co.uk, so a link to the actual newspaper article might be useful. Murph9000 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is the article.[1] Thincat (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, both first commentors, for reminding me the rules of wikipedia. I still hope that free thinking (what Wikipedia calls "original research") is not forbidden and that it is allowed at least in a talk page! :) I put it here on purpose, for being seen for all those interested in the matter, analysing it, etc. I think that encyclopaedic work presumes first at all the (professional) understanding of the matter discussed. The capacity to discern is important, I think, and one of the parts of discernment is the free associative thinking, which has then to be checked by iterations and critique. But the ORIGIN of any good work are good ideas, not just working without ideas in the background. So I just put here my thoughts, that shows how I personally understand the matter. They could be right or wrong, but they could fuel further thoughts about this matter, isn't it?

I was somehow surprised and sad, that I do not receive any content comment (only on formal matters), but then came the comments of Murph9000, and that made me happy again! Yes, it is correct that we do not know if the detail drawing is "as built" or not! A link to an article that uses the detail sectional drawing is the following: https://www.e-architect.co.uk/london/grenfell-tower-in-west-london

Sorry for not placing the link from the express newspaper - I cannot find it now anymore...

the https://www.e-architect.co.uk/london/grenfell-tower-in-west-london is a very interesting article, written by architects, trying to summarise and to gather a lot of architectural and planning material. I recommend it to all those which are interested or are editing this article here in wikipedia. Horia mar (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the Daily Express is referring to this application and in particular the Sustainability and energy statement. Thincat (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Working on the Reactions section

Further information: Talk:Grenfell Tower fire/Reactions

Just to let everyone know I'm going to tackle this section, and attempt to restructure it. I've placed a template on the section, but I'll actually copy the text onto a subpage as the volume of editing would make it difficult to do it in the article itself. The template is there to show someone is working on it, but if anyone's unhappy about that then feel free to remove it. This is Paul (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so the new version is now ready to paste in, and hopefully is presented in a more encyclopedic format. I'll replace what's currently there, and would welcome any comments. comments are welcome. If anybody should wish to restore the original text it can be found here. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE - the reactions section works fine as it is, in chronological order. I reverted one attempt to rewrite it this way, and it seems to be that the silent consensus is that we stay with chronological. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is Paul OK, you were bold and acted in good faith. The usual procedure is to wait after having proposed a major change, especially when a similar change has already been reverted and raised on this talk page. I've returned the section back to chronological order whilst we and other editors discuss this and reach a consensus. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots I saw your revert the other day, and agreed with it because the editor who'd made the changes had messed things up considerably. My decision to have a go today was in response to the section being tagged. I've rewritten parts of it so the text flows (which it really didn't last time). There were also a couple of repetitions in there (Corbyn's visit to a relief centre being one that springs to mind). I suppose I'm thinking that as we go forward there's going to be more stuff to add to this section, and we might want to consolidate what's there. But I've no objection if the consensus is to go back to it being in chronological order. This is Paul (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My thinking was that we don't need a day-by-day account after 19 June. A section can be added title "later reactions" or similar for any significant developments, such as today's news re the Kensington Court flats being made available. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Having worked on a few recent disaster articles, I'm noticing we tend not to lay out post-event events strictly in chronological order (I had something like this in mind). One of my concerns with keeping it in the way you're prescribing is that over time some of the information becomes disjointed (eg, the charity single: Do we add subsequent information about that after its original mention, or elsewhere in a "subsequent reactions" section?) I'll concede the section could be better headed, so that would need careful consideration. There could, however, be problems with neutrality as it is, as the criticism of Theresa May mentioned over the two days is unbalanced. With reference to the apartment block acquisition, a problem I had today with that was where to fit it. I have added it, but elsewhere. This is Paul (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Now we have a one line section for 21 June talking about the resignation of Nicholas Holgate. This is exactly the kind of thing reorganising the section would avoid, and also something we should endeavour to avoid. This is Paul (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Significant as it is the first resignation. Moved to "Government response" section to group with other 21 June events. Not clear on divide between "Impact" and "Reactions". Some elements are distributed over several days - they don't fit neatly into a Chronology. David Crayford (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Good work, This is Paul, looks much better. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I prefer the original too. I think the chronological order is needed for context. Also I don't think the new version is neutral enough - grouping under those headings leads the reader rather than allowing them to form their own opinion based on the presented facts. -- de Facto (talk). 17:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Seems to me this section risks becoming a diary of events that people will just add to sporadically as each reaction occurs. Fine if we're writing a diary, but I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopaedia. 2A00:23C5:733F:BF00:6C81:91F8:6A7E:21F8 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cladding PE and FR versions in 2010 U.S. brochure

Reynobond PE and FR versions are mentioned in the U.S. manufacturer brochures from 2010 (Fabrication Guidelines) [2] (page 1, pdf page 3) and November 2012 [3] (page 6). I therefore propose to remove the dubious statement "According to the BBC, the more fire-resistant version (Reynobond FR) is a very new product, and it is unclear whether it was available at the time the building was being refurbished" taken from a "BBC live report" where the reporter probably did not have access to full info. Anyway, I can no longer find this info in this rolling news cite. Any objections? Rwendland (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Speed74 (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If the FR cladding was in the 2010 brochure, then it was available when the tower was refurbished in 2016. I see nothing dubious about the statement. Mjroots (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably there were no restrictions, between 2010 and 2016, on availability in the UK of a product listed in a US brochure? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC) p.s. using a manufacturer's brochure as a source like this seems a little close to WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR?

I also thought it was close to WP:OR, hence decided to discuss before doing. But this isn't putting something in through WP:OR, but removing something I can no longer even find in its original (rolling news) cite, so seemed reasonable. It's availability in the EU as opposed to the US is a possible issue, but this is essentially removing poorly cited info anyway. Rwendland (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agreed - no objections. You are wise to be cautious. I think our good old friend the Daily Mail had something to say about "EU safety regulations" over the weekend (apart from their shocking expose of the "left-wing spin" being put on the disaster by Comrade Corbyn and his pinko pals). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No objections, and well done. --Andreas JN466 12:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. [4] --Andreas JN466 12:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• This sounds to me like, contrary to Wikipedia policy, we are giving more weight to original research carried out by editors here than to reliably sourced information from secondary sources. -- de Facto (talk). 14:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  If the original source has gone, it just can't be included here full stop. Maybe the BBC have removed it for the same reason? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @DeFacto: The sentence was no longer verifiable. It was no longer present in the cited source, nor was it present in the Wayback archive of that page that was linked in the reference. I did a Google search for Reynobond + new on the BBC website, and found nothing. --Andreas JN466 15:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry all, I misunderstood. I thought we were claiming to know better. Of course, if there is no RS, then it should be removed, I agree. -- de Facto (talk). 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"According to the BBC, the more fire-resistant version (Reynobond FR) is a very new product, and it is unclear whether it was available at the time the building was being refurbished" . - - - - - In my opinion they mentioned the 'Reynobond A2' version that meets the 'non flammable' A2 combustion level according to EN 13501. - - - - - - Please, remember aluminum melts at 660°C weather a PE, FR or A2-version meets any combustion level. This Photo (Link) shows that the flames through the window exceeded 660°C. When aluminum sheets are heated over 660°C, the aluminum flows between the aluminum oxide surfaces of the sheet downwards while the area that is exposed to heat get thin until only extreme thin aluminum oxide surface remains with a thick bump of liquid aluminum beneath. A melted aluminum sheet with a see through spot of aluminum oxide is shown at this photo (bottom right). I don't believe that the FR or A2 version would have withstood 1000°C for ... perhaps an hour of blaze coming out of a flat window. Simply because a pure aluminium sheet meets A1 combustion level (higher than A2), but it's still melting aluminum. In my opinion a Panel with a layer of steel or stainless steel would have met the requirement. - - - - - Combustion levels A1, A2 and beneath doesn't tell anything about melting or establishing a hole in the material. It's all about burning of the material, dripping of burning material and smoke while heated up. Nothing else. - - - - - Well. When I'm not right, please answer with a correction. Thank you. - - - - - Hugh, it sounds aggressive, but it isn't meant that way. A tragedy. -- Temdor (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A very interesting observation that the aluminium itself melted. We need a reliable source to cite to mention this. It might be that if Reynobond PE had not been used providing fuel, the temperature would have stayed at below the melting point however. Rwendland (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

NB - just found a 2001 U.S. Alcoa brochure (16 years ago) that mentions both Reynobond PE and FR versions: [5] (pages 10 and 14) - so the FR version has been around a long time, in the U.S. at least. Rwendland (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've stumbled into a very accessible UKtechnical article about the combustibility of cladding like Reynobond PE.[6] Thincat (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Facade cladding & insulation / Facade fire security standards need update (UK & Europe)

I am an architect, and studied a bit the problems of fire safety, regarding the renovation of the facade at Grenfell tower.
As I am not a specialist of wikipedia, I leave it to your discretion to use some of this informations in the main article, or to search for the fitting sources that underpin them.

First, there should be a mention of the UK fire regulations. They seem to be, compared to those in the USA or Europe, very lax, and in some points simply criminal:

• they seem to allow "low flammable" materials on facades, even in case of high-rise!
• the EU and USA regulations are forbidding explicitly any kind of "(low-)flammable" materials, as only "incombustible" ones are accepted for high-rise buildings. In the EU, only buildings with under 8 storeys are accepted (as an exception) to be covered in facade isolations made of plastic foam (Polystirene, EPS/XPS), and in the USA it's allowed to use low-flammable insulations only for parterre buildings.
  

The fire regulations were widely criticised already, in the UK press, in connection to the tradgedy of Grenfell.

The Grenfell facade was done with low-flammable materials, even though it is a high-rise building (that means, last floor is higher than 22m, according, eg., to German or Austrian fire standards). This is simply incredible and criminal, in case it is true that the project for Grenfell respected the actual fire regulations of London/UK.

Secondly, there are two issues there, regarding the facade fire at Grenfell Bdg.:

1. the cladding itself
2. the PIR (polyisocyanate) insulation TOO!

both of them are just of "low flammability" but not "incombustible", according to various EU-fire standards. I see that generally, in the newspress and here in wiki, there is no mention of the fact that the insulation was equally a problem, not only the cladding. Plastic of any kind should usually be forbidden in high-rise facades, as it burns sooner or later, if enough temperature is available in a fire situation. The various plastics used for insulations are also extremely dangerous because they emit a lot of poisonous gases when burned.
In the case of Grenfell, the PIR insulation was one of the "best" amid "low flammable" ones, considered to be very well resisting to start burning. But, in case it starts burning, it releases hydrogen cyanide, highy poisonous!
Normally, this PIR should be also banned from use in high-rise, but it seems it is not banned in London, at least.
In some countries, the plastic foam is permitted in lower buildings, as ít is considered that the firefighters can save the persons more easily from there, eg. with the classical leather. It is also a compromise done for the idea of permitting cheaper insulation for better green standards. Non-combustible insulations are available too, but they are more expensive (mineral wool, eg. product "Rockwool"). But permitting this kind of lastly flammable plastic foams in high rise building it irresponsible, as high-rise is difficult to evacuate in case of fire, so any kind of burning facades are a high danger.

Regarding how the facades that use low-flammable materials behave at fire, there are no really convicing fire tests available today.
Here below an article from 2016 about this:
http://firesafeeurope.eu/fsf-survey/

"The EU needs one harmonised, large-scale and performance-based fire test for building façades. This is the result of a survey launched by Fire Safe Europe to gather world-leading experts’ thoughts and opinions on façades fire test methods.
Building facades are complex systems, where different materials and installation techniques can play a role in case of fire. Therefore, façade systems should be tested as a whole in a scenario representative of real life fire exposure, and not in small or intermediate tests that cannot challenge the system.
The list of available façade tests is long, and constantly added on and revised. These different test methods respond to a plethora of regulations on facades requirements in the EU and all over the world. However, fires are everywhere the same.
Both fire resistance and reaction to fire should be considered as criteria.
Different countries have different needs and experiences related to fire, and a harmonized test method should be able to address all of these." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horia mar (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Horia mar: Regarding your first point, note Grenfell_Tower_fire#Criticism_of_fire_safety_building_standards. Quite possibly, this section merits expansion (sources?). The situation is complicated by the fact that the building may not have complied with regulations (see the comments by the Department for Communities and Local Government quoted in the article). If you can find further sources (especially, perhaps, foreign sources) that specifically criticise UK safety standards, do bring them here! Regarding your second point, the insulation product – Celotex – is mentioned at various points in the article, including the fact that it was flammable and burned. Andreas JN466 15:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Thank you very much! (my general impression is still that the cladding seems to be mainly mentioned because of its outer shell, and the insulation appears only sporadically, or not enough underlined, pointed out...)--Horia mar (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• As a resident of a 13-floor high-rise in Bristol that is about to be clad, could a simple guide be given as to what should and should not be used? Some of the smaller 7-floor attached housing were clad pre-2000 using expanded polystyrene blocks that were fixed and then plastered over. Does this meet current requirements? Sorry if it seems like I'm using this Talk for clarification, but we are about to be clad and it would be re-assuring to at least know what they should be putting on. A dozen or so high-rise up to 24 floors have recently been re-clad. Bristol city Council "thinks" they are OK Richard Nowell (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  We can't really give proper advice here, as there are many variables involved and we don't know the specific materials being used in your situation. So, this is just a quick personal opinion. As far as polystyrene goes (if that's really what it was), the quickest way to summarise that is Unsafe at Any Speed when it comes to large structures containing people. What should they be using? Something which is incapable of burning or releasing noxious gases when heated, such as mineral wool. Even good old asbestos would be far preferable to plastics. Murph9000 (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Richard Nowell:Dear Mr. Nowell, Murph9000 already gave you good advice! Generally, there are the following security thoughts regarding fire in buildings: 1) two different fire escape ways (eg: a secure staircase and acces over the windows by the firefighter's ladder). This means: your building should not be very high (usually less than 70 ft. (22m), so in case of fire, the firefighters ladder is not too short (as it was in Grenfell), and that the doors between the flats and the staircase are fire resistant for at least 30 min. (in order to make the staircase a secure way to leave the building, at least for a while), and/or there are systems of ventilating the staircase, so that it does not fill up with poisonous smoke in case of fire. 2) facade and staircase materials should be non-combustible. They should not only be "hardly flammable" but really non-combustible. That means, the staircase surfaces do not burn in any situation, and the facade either. Otherwise, both ways of evacuation could be compromised, exactly what happened in Grenfell, highly tragical! The polystyrene insulation on facades is considered "hardly inflammable" in many EU-countries, because it is covered by a fire-retardand plaster, and it has some other qualities (at least as tested in small scale tests, that sometimes do not simulate certain problems that could still light up the material, as in Grenfell!). But this kind of insulation is accepted usually (eg. Germany, Austria) only for NON-high-rise buildings, in other countries it is forbidden completely (USA! except parterre buildings). Many consider it still a great danger, as it already burned in many places around the world (similarily to Grenfell, spreading flames over the entire facade) and is a matter of fire situation if it will burn or not. There are a lot of alternatives (as Murph9000 said) but they are usually more expensive (but still affordable!). Check google for polystyrene facades and their flammability. There are additional fire security measures for polystyrene facades, as putting every floor a stripe of non-burning insulation (like rockwool, etc.) and interrupting the continuous polystyrene facade, and/or putting a stripe of non-burning rockwool around each window). If it is possible, avoid polystyrene when building. Or ask for additional fire-security measure for that building (like: fire resisting entrance doors for the flats, facade sprinklers, fire alarms in each sleeping room, secure way out over the staircase, etc.). I hope it does not disturb anyone for writing this here! I think it is also of interest for the general discussion about the fire in Grenfell. If it disturbs, then I can move it to the user's discussions page, but I am no specialist in wiki-editing. --Horia mar (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thankyou for your replies. Obviously, high-rise dwellers such as myself are rightly nervous about what has been put on our buildings. As mentioned above, some cladding work was done to a smaller part of our flats, built in 1968, which consisted of polystyrene fixed to the concrete walls and then rendered over- the render making the polystyrene fire-retardent. This may have been OK for the regulations in post 2000 but it seems now is unnacceptable. Bristol City Council has been contacted. Laypeople such as myself have to take experts' opinions as fact. As a personal view, I am incredulous that any company could clad a high-rise with flammable plastics; they shouldn't be in business. As for Kensington and Chelsea... Thanks again Richard Nowell (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nowell: Dear Mr. Novell, there are news saying that already a lot of high-rise apartment buildings in London and UK are being stripped of their flammable cladding, as many of them showed, when tested the last days, that they are insecure. See this article (at the end of it! ignore the starting part with the fridge!) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/23/hotpoint-tells-customers-to-check-fridge-freezers-after-grenfell-tower-fire

If your building has 13 floors, it is definitely too high for being covered in flammable polystyrene (even if fire-retardant covered by plaster!), at least considering the fire regulations in many European countries (e.g..: German speaking countries). It is a pity that the UK government seemed to intend to further deregulate the fire safety standards, being "happy" of the fact that the Brexit would free them from the obligation to conform to strict EU-norms (see here: the guardian - government-backed-red-tape-group-eu-fire-safety-rules-grenfell-fire )

Yeah! It's a Facade at last!

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Grenfell_Tower_fire&oldid=786838043 = thankd for making this use the basic english alphabet- good luck with the ensuing repercussions!!!! Rolapib (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Seemed obvious to me - why would we deviate from what the reliable sources do, as recommended in the Wikipedia style guide at WP:DIACRITICS? -- de Facto (talk). 21:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

it's the little things that make such a difference!Rolapib (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are we bothering to use the term at all? Strictly speaking would it not simply apply to the visible outer-most skin? Why use the word when 'External cladding' is more than adequate and more often used by sources? Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

sandwich Alu-PE cladding plates and their fire ratings – what does it all mean?

this is a professional analysis of the PE cladding problem, and why it is accepted as "fire retardant" in some countries, and in other not!
"...it is impossible for us to conclude anything, however from our standpoint the use of PE in an application where fire retardancy is required is a bad starting point."
impact solutions -pe cladding and fire ratings - what does it all mean? --Horia mar (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Distinction between Planning Permission and Building Regulations Approval

This sentence from the page:

"One aspect of the investigation is whether or not buildings regulations had been violated when planning permission had been given to use the particular type of cladding installed when Grenfell Tower was renovated.[233]"

conflates two entirely separate legal / permissions frameworks.

In the UK, planning consent is required for most forms of construction work that have implications for the wider realm, on grounds of appearance, environmental impact, social amenities requirements, traffic and so on. It appears that visual and other aspects of the refurbishment were the subject of a planning application referenced as PP/12/04097 by RBKC [7].

However, UK planning law makes no reference to building safety or safety in case of fire.

Building safety is dealt with under a separate legal framework, the Building Regulations Acts. These cover structural, sanitation, ventilation and other such matters, and crucially in this case, Fire Safety (although the Act is framed in such a way as to make the details of specific requirements amenable to change without legislation, referring to separate documents which are published by government, which further refer to other publications such as British Standards).

Under this system, it is perfectly proper to apply for, and obtain, planning consent for a building which could never be built in accordance with the Building Regulations. Equally, it is possible to build a building in perfect compliance with the Building Regulations which could never be granted Planning Permission. The two systems are entirely separate.

Anecdotally (and in my direct experience), the departments administering these two separate legal frameworks within local government have very different cultures, and often seem to avoid communication with each other.

The upshot of all this is that the sentence quoted makes no sense at all. 'Building Regulations' cannot be violated by the grant of planning permission. Reference 233 is incoherent.

dilgreen (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Added: There exists a potentially confusing overlap between the environmental remit of planning law, and the energy consumption remit of Building Regulations, in the matter of insulation. Planning Law IS interested in measures to counteract climate change - and thus work which contributes to the overall energy efficiency of a project IS considered under planning law. Building Regulations stipulate particular targets for the thermal characteristics of building elements. Thus the planning application will have made reference to the improved environmental standards to be achieved by the project, probably in enthusiastic but general terms. However, it is very likely that in this case, the Building Regulations will have had no interest in the actual insulation value of what was a refurbishment, with no change of use (although the reconfiguration of the lower floors referred to in the planning application could have triggered specific requirements). Part B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations would certainly have been relevant, though, as a material alteration to the fire characteristics of the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilgreen (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DELETED I didn't like it either. David Crayford (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The planning permission approval for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment is here and it says that if changes are required under the building regulations. these may additionally need separate planning approval. Thincat (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Change of title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have changed the title of the article from "Grenfell Tower fire" to "Grenfell Tower disaster" as it was just more than a fire but a event in which to date claimed the lives of nearly eighty people which in my eyes mmakes the wording "disaster" and its aftermath more appropriate than the word fire. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC))

• A change I totally disagree with. The original title was absolutely fine. Article should be moved back IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. "Disaster" sounds tabloidy. It was a fire. A horrific fire for sure, but still a fire. Please restore "Grenfell Tower fire."Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@MOTORAL1987: You are an editor of ten years tenure, and there is no way that you couldn't have suspected that that would turn out to be a controversial move. You are meant to discuss it on the talk page before the move, not merely present editors with a fait accompli. All of which it is hard to imagine you did not previously know. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact, per WP:BRD I have restored the status quo ante. We can now discuss any move before it takes place. Many thanks. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, this same user has recently made a ton of undiscussed page moves relating to the Cricket World Cup. All of them were reverted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not have a go at me, fine I was wrong but don't take it out on me personally just because I have a slightly different view of things, we are all on the same side on this. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC))

Moving a page is not a minor edit. You break stats and links all over the internet. David Crayford (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen some news reports call it the Grenfell Tower disaster, or possibly tragedy, but I think Grenfell Tower fire is the best title for this article. Speed74 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fire" is factual, neutral and descriptive. Disaster is opinion. David Crayford (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 OK chaps, what's done is done, and the page is back where it belongs. I've given MOTORAL1987 some advice, so there's no need to pile on the agony further. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish to apologise for my action, I accept to do it without consultanting you all was wrong and I accept that but please don't make this personal, I won't be editing this article anymore I was just trying to share a slightly different point of view and I went about it the wrong way. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The deadliest fire in Great Britain since those caused by the Blitz, the air raids of World War II?

This claim is in the lead, it is not reffed nor covered in the body AFAI can see. I've no idea whether it is true, but it should be in body and reffed as the lead is meant to be a summary of content in the article. Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Was Piper Alpha in Great Britain? 167 killed but some (many?) will have drowned. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That depends on the criteria used. It was well outside coastal waters, outside the customs limit, into "offshore". So, in some respects, international waters but under the control of the UK. Murph9000 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a ref for the claim. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The claim was added by this edit. The source says In 1940 the capital was caught in the middle of the Blitz, which caused huge damage and claimed the lives of 20,000 people. and On 29 December around 100,000 bombs fell in just a few hours, causing a firestorm across most of the City's square mile up to Islington. 14 fire fighters were to lose their lives that night, with over 250 injured. So, the fatalities caused by the fire was only 14. The claim should be replaced with a more reasonable case.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

See Second Great Fire of London. 160 civilians died that night, as well as the 14 firefighters. Many more died later of their injuries. How many of these deaths were directly caused by fire it's impossible to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Could not be called a single fire. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite agree. Don't even know if there was such a thing as a "single fire" that night or, if there was, how many it might have killed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The claim was removed by this edit (Acts of war should not be included) but re-added by this edit (Should not be included on the basis of what Wikipedia policy?). The claim should be replaced with European researchers say that the Grenfell Tower disaster is now the deadliest fire in mainland Britain since they started keeping close records at the start of the 20th century.[8].―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect Brit Eng might suggest "detailed" instead of "close", but yes. We might even mention the Emergency Events Database at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The greatest loss of life from a single bomb in the Second World War was 107, at Wilkinson's Lemonade Factory in North Shields. There is no article but the bombing is mentioned at Bethnal Green tube station, where a human crush killed 173 people in 1943. Roches (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a bomb is quite the same as a fire.Speed74 (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is the worst building fire in the United Kingdom since the 1887 fire in the Theatre Royal, Exeter killed 186 people. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots, do you have a source for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:, I could probably come up with plenty of sources for the number of deaths in the 1887 fire. As for being the deadliest building fire since the, it's deduced from List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll, so probably not usable in the article. For now, stick with Nedrutland's solution mentioned below. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As we didn't know what the previous worst fire was as we can not know the eventual loss of life will prove to be, I have simplified it to since the war (which still indicates its magnitude) Nedrutland (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

During the war... Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"I fought for free speech!"

"Oh shut up!"

From what I can find also it does seem to be the deadliest single building fire in the United Kingdom since 1887. I was able to find a source here compiling a large number of high-casualty building fires in the UK, including the 1887 fire. The only high-casualty fire that seems to be excluded from the list is the 1987 King's Cross fire, but I doubt that any fire with a death toll exceeding that of the Grenfell Tower would be excluded, with the possible exception of fires caused by war. Undescribed (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

British Isles v United Kingdom

In the Similar fires section I've changed the heading from British Isles to United Kingdom, because British Isles is a term that causes much controversy on here, so should be avoided when possible. This is Paul (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I previously changed it from United Kingdom to British Isles for one very good reason. The Isle of Man is NOT part of the United Kingdom, but it is part of the British Isles. Mjroots (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a problem with British Isles, because it is a purely geographical term. But if you don't like it I see two other possibilities: have no subheadings, so everything appears under the main heading 'Similar fires'; or have three subheadings, with Isle of Man added as a third subheading, under which the Summerland fire would appear. Dubmill (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

British Isles usually ends up upsetting someone from the WP:IRELAND lot sooner or later, which is why it should be avoided. Personally I'd favour no titles as we're only talking about a handful of articles here. But I'm not going to change anything, because I'm fed up of being slapped down by Mjroots. This is Paul (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@This is Paul: - I hope you're not implying I have WP:OWN issues over this article, because I can assure you I don't. All I am trying to do is ensure that the article is accurate. The section originally started off untitled, then it got separated into UK and elsewhere before I renamed the UK bit for reasons stated in edit summary and above. I have no objection to returning it to untitled, although in that case it should be in chronological order. So, why not put forward a firm proposal and see if you can gain consensus for it? Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I wasn't going to say that, but I think if we had a WP:MYOPINION you may well have issues with that. I have the utmost respect for you, but I think you need to be a little bit less abrasive in your posts sometimes. For example, maybe refrain from using phrases such as STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE in bold capitals in future, as I'm probably not the only one who'd interpret that as shouting. In fact, to be honest with you, talking to you on this page has felt a bit like being in a meeting with a colleague who thinks you're wrong because you don't share their vision for the company, so just argues. Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I'll bother. Given your previous responses I'm not convinced it wouldn't just be a waste of my time. Maybe what I need to do is move on to something else, and I'll come back to this at a later date. Life's really too short. This is Paul (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I came across as abrasive. I've been around long enough to know that this project works on consensus and that it doesn't always go in the direction I want it to. If that happens, I accept it and move on. As I indicated above, I've no objection to removing the subheadings if they are going to be problematical. Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess we're all a bit like that sometimes. I owe you an apology now for accidentally knocking out your reply. But I've just restored it so all should be good now. I probably won't do much on here in the short term as much of the technical stuff that's coming up isn't my field, but I have the page watchlisted so can keep up to date with what's going on. This is Paul (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Simple solution - move the Isle of Man entry to the 'Elsewhere' section and rename the 1st section back to UK. No complaints from the Irish. And the categorisations are correct. Would that not work? CalzGuy (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible suggestion. This is Paul (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done - added a hidden note re IoM so editors are dissuaded from moving it back to UK. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Rehousing locations

On 19 June this LBC report suggested that some residents were being rehoused as far away as Preston in Lancashire. Can this story be corroborated? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This from The Telegraph mentions the rumour, and has a statement from Theresa May in which she promises to rehouse them in Kensington and Chelsea, or a neighbouring borough. This from The Huffington Post repeats the claim from "a lawyer". Hope this helps. This is Paul (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this at all notable, given May's apparent u-turn? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. My suspicion is it's another rumour, so probably not notable. This is Paul (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. Best left out. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ample and argued view on the problems that lead to the fire (NY Times, 24.06.'17)

I found an article in the NY Times that is worth reading every paragraph of it! It puts the fire in a larger context, connecting the dots much better than many english newspapers (which are concentrating each time only on one single point, sometimes being even dilettante about technical details).
The most interesting parts are those about the effect of the "freedom-for-bussiness-politics", that deregulated fire safety rules or impeded that obvious dangers lead to necessary updates in the fire regulations of the UK, under both major parties rule. The problems were signalled by many specialists and observed after some deadly fires in the UK, but they were simply ignored by the politics and by the public servants in charge with the fire regulations. Some citations brought by the article, from cognisant servants arguing against better/updated regulations for fire safety are simply terrifying, when read from today's point of view!
For anyone who likes to understand things in a deeper way, and to know how the UK fire regulations are different to the USA, in regard to the facade cladding:
Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety --Horia mar (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This article from NPR fills in more of the more complex legal details left out of the New York Times article. In particular, it is the International Building Code which requires the use of the NFPA 285 test for cladding (the test developed in 1998 referred to in the NYT article). Also, the NPR article explains why the NFPA 285 test is such an insurmountable barrier for flammable cladding: it costs about $30,000 or more and must be done separately for each building. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I got "Page Not Found." Googled and its here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html David Crayford (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, to give some background context (to help anyone who wants to take a first try at integrating all information from the NYT and NPR articles into this Wikipedia article, which I don't have the time to do myself right now)---under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. it is the state governments that have plenary jurisdiction in the U.S. over construction, not the federal government, so building codes are a matter of state law in some states and local law (county, township, city, town, etc.) in others where the state has delegated such authority. Most U.S. jurisdictions use the IBC and most also use the majority of other model codes promulgated by the International Code Council.

The National Fire Protection Association is a separate organization focused on fire safety and model fire codes, and is driven by fire safety officials and fire insurers. There was a nasty battle over jurisdiction between the ICC and the NFPA back in the early 2000s, but the current compromise seems to be that ICC focuses on building codes (i.e., the rules to follow to ensure that a building will be structurally safe and habitable) and NFPA focuses on fire codes (i.e., the rules to follow to ensure that a building will not burn down or will allow people to escape in time). Many ICC code sections actually cross-reference NFPA codes and standards. Building owners in the U.S. and the contractors they hire have to make sure that work on buildings complies with both organizations' rules, to the extent they were adopted by the relevant state or local government. Generally, the IBC is enforced by building inspectors who work for a local building inspection department, and the NFPA's Fire Code and other codes and standards are enforced by fire marshals who work for a local fire department. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This page from a book on Google Books makes it clear how NFPA 285 works and why it's so hard for flammable cladding to pass as noted in the NYT article. The NFPA 285 test only certifies a particular "assembly," meaning that a designer who wants to use cladding that has been certified with a particular assembly must be able to duplicate that assembly precisely as to all components, not just the same cladding. If for whatever reason, the assembly cannot be duplicated (for example, because the insulation or some other part is obsolete), and there is no assembly already certified for the parts that are currently available, then they have to try to get another assembly certified or switch to an alternate design. So this effectively forces U.S. architects and engineers to simply specify non-flammable cladding in the first place, rather than trying to prove that a particular assembly of flammable cladding in combination with other components and fire safety measures will still be able to pass the NFPA 285 test. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind, I will try to put a little of this information into the article in a concise fashion so it's clear exactly how the U.S. approach differs from the UK approach. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Now this is much clearer how the U.S. tests these things rigorously. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Spot on. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Beware fake news

This story about a baby being rescued after 12 days is circulating on the book of faces. Please note that the source is not the Associated Newspapers Metro. Story being denounced as fake news. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes....the book of faces, where "it's on the internet, so it must be true!" is the rule.... This story is a complete and cruel fake. The Metro (British newspaper)'s URL/website is metro.co.uk and has been registered since 1996, the above website address is a copycat/faked one -> metro-uk.com. The fake/metro-uk website has been registered since Oct 25, 2016 through "Wild West Domains", the content is copyrighted 2016 by "MekaNews Lite" and the site is run through WordPress. This "story" is also showing up on the trendolizer website. PLEASE do not give it any more clicks - & if your curiousity gets the better of you and you do go to the fake website to check out its fiction make sure to clear your cache of the fake site's cookies and you should probably also run a virus-scan of your computer afterwards. Shearonink (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Cause

In "Cause" there are a couple of refs that point to live media that need firming up. Unclear who the he/she witness is/are. Perhaps out of necessity there's some duplication with the investigation section. I did put in a "see below" link pointing to investigation to reduce repetition but it was replaced. David Crayford (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC: Why do England's high-rises keep failing fire tests?

• Cook, Chris (27 June 2017). "Why do England's high-rises keep failing fire tests?". BBC. Retrieved 28 June 2017.

I found this ref on BBC News, which may be useful somewhere. A summary of it which is somewhat mind boggling with the benefit of hindsight, explaining how we got to the point of wrapping buildings in highly flammable materials.

1. Regs are worded to require A2-grade or better materials
2. Some sub-A2 can be included if you do tests or a study to show it is still safe
3. B-grade starts to get used
4. RS5000 manufacturer says to use A2-grade cladding, but B-grade starts getting used with it
5. An unspecified insulation is stated as being ok with B-grade, but ends up getting used with C-grade cladding!
6. A2-grade has effectively been forgotten after a few iterations of this, then it all went horribly wrong

The above was not a bunch of cowboy builders acting outside the system, but involved the National House Builders' Council (NHBC), a big player in building inspection. NHBC is a de facto part of the system itself. The article closes with Accepted professional practice has systematically reduced the fire resistance of our tall buildings.

Murph9000 (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Shadow Home Secretary – "Just babble"?

The following about the death toll was removed from the lead: "Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott believes it will be well into triple digits."

Edit summary: "unevidenced view of shadow home sec unsuitable for encyclopedia - just babble"

The situation in the tower is very difficult for the authorities to get a handle on, given the amount of people who may have been there as illegal subtenants, the number of people with unclear immigration status who may be afraid to come forward, and the number of families that were completely wiped out, leaving no one to report anyone missing. These are all concerns raised in the article as it stands, all well sourced. The police themselves are expressing concern that they "do not have a complete picture" (see today's statement by Detective Superintendent Fiona McCormack reported here).

Abbott's views are informed by the statements of local residents, who in some respects are in a much better position to judge how many people were in the building, how many are known to have survived, and how many are missing – those were their neighbours whom they saw daily. Almost all news outlets this morning feature reports of growing scepticism among local residents about the current official death toll.

In my view, given the unique circumstances prevailing at the moment, and the amount of attention the death toll is getting in the media today, this should be reflected in the lead. As for dismissing a statement by the Shadow Home Secretary as "babble", that's in itself "babble". The shadow cabinet is a prominent part of the British political establishment; it is not some fringe outfit. In my view neutrality demands that we reflect prominent opposition views prominently in the article, rather than reiterating only the government line. Views? Andreas JN466 09:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Restore

1. Andreas JN466 09:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not restore

1. Opposition MP's don't carry as much weight as those of the party in government (even if they are only there by the skin of their teeth). Given Diane Abbot's recent track record of numbers, this is not worthy of inclusion in the lede. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
2. Not sure it's just "babble", as such - Abbot is likely to be far nearer the residents and locals. But there will always be political capital to be made out of disagreeing with the government line. If she is proved right, there might be a case for re-adding later. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
3. Mention given in body is sufficient. Speed74 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Not suitable for the lead, without a very good second source. The opposition don't have the same responsibility inside debate to ensure that all of their facts are well-sourced. The government figures will be cautious, but should be based on the best available facts. Murph9000 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Given the conflicted information coming from multiple government ministers I'd have to say that the government don't seem to have any responsibility for ensuring the debate ideas are well sourced either.CalzGuy (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Well done all

Just want to make my appriciation that while this article has very many edits (as it is something ongoing) and also there has been many edit on editing ( editing from a just edit part of the article) there has not been any (as far as I see) any edit warring. WP: edit war

a real collective effort

Well done all WillemienH (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

First sentence (or whole first paragraph)

Please could we avoid formulations along these lines (as it stands as I write):

The Grenfell Tower fire started on 14 June 2017 at Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey, 220-foot (67 m) high tower block of public housing flats in North Kensington, west London.

Really - three "tower"s in one sentence? Two "Grenfell Tower"s? I changed it a few days ago to this:

The Grenfell Tower fire, which started on 14 June 2017, was the deadliest in Great Britain since the Second World War, resulting in many casualties and severe damage to the building. This skyscraper fire occurred at Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey, 220-foot (67 m) high tower block of public housing flats in North Kensington, west London.

I'm not saying that my version's perfect - far from it - please let's improve it - but please not "The Grenfell Tower fire was in Grenfell Tower" type of prose. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Good point and I have even seen complete phrases or sentences repeated not only on here but in professional papers. In response, I am testing Grammarly in Chrome to see if it can help spot basic errors as there is no built-in spelling, coding or grammar checks on Wikipedia like you get in Word or an integrated programming suite. David Crayford (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Formally identified victims are now eighteen

See here. Also, I suggest checking on this page, as it is continuously updated as more victims are formally identified. --37.116.59.28 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Updated to 18. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the number of missing presumed dead be accordingly reduced to 61? 79 is still the overall number, I think. --37.116.59.28 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am curious why victims were found so slowly after almost 2 weeks from the fire. Are there any reports about the problem that hinders the rescue operation?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, because of the length and the severity of the fire along with the almost complete-destruction of the building and its furnishings, any remains are probably mostly incinerated and unlikely to be identified as certain individuals by physical appearance. Personally-identifying characteristics such as dental records would be co-mingled with burnt debris from the building and items in the apartments. Also, this isn't like an airplane or a ship where there is a list of passengers or a place of work where people are on a company payroll as working specific hours. This was a high-rise where residents' records were probably destroyed in the fire itself, where any survivors are in varying states of injuries/health/shock - it would be difficult to interview survivors to find out who was present in their apartment if they are incapable of communication. Identifying everyone individually who died in the Tower might ultimately be unknowable - there could be a final finding of "missing and presumed dead" for many former residents of the Grenfell Tower. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult this must be for the residents...what an awful thing. Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but "missing" and "unidentified remain found" are different. If police found remains but not identified them, it should have said so instead of "missing".―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know: they have identified 18 people so far, but they have found more than 18, they just aren't saying how many. To put it simply:

1) 79 people are either missing or dead, according to records (though, this figure is about one week old and has not been updated)

2) Undisclosed number of bodies have been recovered (three days ago it was stated that "every complete body has been removed", number not disclosed); of these, 18 have been identified and are part of the 79. Further remains, number unknown, are presumed to be still inside.--37.116.59.28 (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Its 19 as of this morning. Please refer to Primary Sources such as Met Police, London Fire Brigade and GOV.UK websites for official figures and quotations. Keep UPDATE website ref names generic so they don't need re-writing. David Crayford (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@David Crayford: The citation says 18 and still says 18. I do not see what source you use to say it is 19. I see a later articles here and here that gives the names of victims not released before, but those victims is most likely already included in the count of 18. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

*shrugs* maybe I should have taken a screenshot. It was 19 when I checked the link at 16:30. But yes it does now show 18 at: David Crayford (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the point, but sadly it's unlikely to stay at 18 and perhaps even The Met should be checked against another source in case they SNAFU. Was updated in good faith. David Crayford (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If you say it was, then I am sure it was. Perhaps someone at the Met news desk messed up. The OP of this conversation added the link at 21:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC), but the time stamp on the story now reads Jun 27, 2017 10:32 BST, so they have updated it at least once. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur. At one point the page said 18 victims, of whom 7 were named; then it staid 19 victims, of whom 8 were named; then it reverted back to 18 victims, of whom 8 were named. Apparently there was some confusion when releasing the name of the 8th named victim, who was added as an additional victim whereas it was one of the previously unnamed 11 victims. The page is continuously updated.--37.116.59.28 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The question posed by Phoenix7777 remains: Why is there not a count of "unidentified victims"? It is very strange that the investigation of such a notable disaster only numerates victims once they are identified (or presumed dead, which is something else). There were early reports in the media (with photos) of canines specially trained to find human remains. Why is the public not informed of the progress of these dogs and their specialist handlers? Further, if the recovery effort is so complex, why is there no status of which floors and apartments that have been searched so far? Although this fire was exceedingly hot, the building itself stands and any recovery effort is sure to keep track of which parts of the building have been searched and which parts are yet to be searched. The absence of answers to these obvious questions is in itself notable enough to warrant attention in our article. Lklundin (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing is definitely bizarrely vague, but unless we find a reputable source discussing the issue, we can't insert our own opinions into the article. Speed74 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the BBC, the police have done a full visual search of every flat on every floor. However the police couldn't find further remains because The ferocity of the fire itself makes it harder to recover remains and it is the police's view that there may be people who will never be recovered or identified. So we may be able to understand that the police does not update the death toll and the number of missing people.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Charity single

So far the charity single has been listed under at least two different dates, neither being appropriate to a multi-date event. I've moved it back to a separate sub-section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Names of victims

I have commented out the known names of victims as it is not normal to add them in an article such as this. I realise this is open to debate, as at least one other editor has previously suggested perhaps having a separate article for the victims and naming them there. Other views would be very welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at this reference. <ref>{{cite news|title=Grenfell Tower victim Isaac Paulos, 5, choked to death on fire fumes|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/26/grenfell-tower-victim-isaac-paulos-five-choked-to-death-on-fire-fumes|work=The Guardian|date=26 June 2017|accessdate=27 June 2017}}</ref> The name of the victim is embedded in the url. So we are having to publish names no matter what common practice may be. As we get further away from the event and the issue becomes one of frustration.( POV Warning-euphemism.)the issue of names becomes more prescient, and our skills at separating names from the main article becomes more urgent. ClemRutter (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think that any names embedded in refs are just unavoidable. I don't see that we need to search for an alternative source just to avoid the name of a victim that appears in a title. That's quite a long way from deliberately including an up-to-date list of names in the article. I guess there will a bell curve of "frustration" - eventually the controversy will subside and/or be replaced by yet another calamity. But the way things are going I'm wondering how many Public Enquiry chairpersons we might get through before Christmas. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Having a name embedded in a URL or page title is rather far removed than adding a list of victims (or any names listed in article prose, for that matter). VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been discussed before and my position hasn't changed. No need to name the victims unless they are Wikinotable people. As VQakr said, names of victims in article titles are unavoidable. We don't need to have a policy of not using articles because they have named a victim in the url or article title. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Commenting briefly to point out that this edit comments out the names of victims, but in the same section (visible in this diff) you have the names of the missing. Why are the missing being named but not the victims. If we are going to ruthlessly exclude all mention of names (I think if someone is named as part of the narrative of the event, they can be named), then we should at least be consistent. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Feel free to adjust. I think the case for "the missing" is even weaker than that for "the victims". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to remove them. That is running prose, not a list. I agree lists should be removed, but running prose is borderline acceptable if it is part of the story of the event. I do think we should stop and think for a minute what it looks like to outsiders seeing people arguing over whether to include names or not. There needs to be some decorum. Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I'm "arguing indecorously". I thought this was just a well-mannered discussion. I don't see a big difference between lists and prose. It's the principle of names I was trying to address. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Similar Fires as table?

Just an idea: would the "Similar Fires" section be more readable presented as 2 tables? David Crayford (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

The McCormack quote in this article doesn't match the reference which says instead

 "All I can say at the moment is they [the tiles and insulation] don't pass any safety tests."

The remark in square parentheses are part of the referenced article, I wouldn't know how to put [sic] after each of the left and right square parentheses. Anyway, perhaps the article was clarified later to correct a misquote? I'm going to find a way to put a 'clarification needed' tag on this or something. Createangelos (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The detail I have used in this section is from The Met Police Update website [referenced] but I will give this another look. Where anything is not in quotation marks it is not a quote, obviously. David Crayford (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

OK your above quote does not appear on the Met Police site [23.06.2017] I quoted from: http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-six-fatalities-following-the-fire-in-north-kensington-246230 but it does appear on the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584 [23.06.2017] so we are talking about two different references and different quotes. I am going to investigate this [pun intended] David Crayford (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see we've got our top police officer on the job. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Amusing :) OK BBC site has the quote I included in both its text and in the video of her statement. I think it would be too verbose to quote her verbatim. However, this needs to be balanced with including sufficient relevant detail. What you judge to be "sufficient" is subjective. David Crayford (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying that. On the met police website it seems like she's planning to give two little discussions, one about the insulation and one about the aluminium&polythene tiles in the cladding. She's specific about the insulation burning, but about the cladding only mentions "equivalent aluminium composite tiles" and that they failed a safety test. My worry is about npov if there is a tiles vs insulation question. I'm actually curious if the celotex type of PIR insulation adds calories to a fire or just burns endothermically, I can never find a clear statement about it anywhere, that's why her statement stuck out in my mind.Createangelos (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I clarified that testing was conducted of both fridge and cladding. Hope that helps. The Met source I used is almost a bottomless pit of information. I will add more detail, but at some point, less is more and you have to expect the reader to go to the source. David Crayford (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Death toll

Please note that although 87 human remains have been recovered from the tower, the police have specifically stated this is not the number of deaths. The official death toll is still 80. Speed74 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur. When police go out of their way after a major disaster to draw a careful distinction between the number of remains recovered and the death toll, it is usually because the remains recovered are in very poor condition. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems with firefighting equipment

May be of use? http://www.newsjs.com/url.php?p=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40535417 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.116.59.28 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's important to include this material but I am not sure where it goes. It could tie in with § Investigations as how they responded is something LFB say (in the article) police will look at. But maybe it needs a subheading. David Crayford (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Nedrutland and Proxima Centauri for covering this :) David Crayford (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Casualties
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As of 28 June 2017, the official presumed number of deaths was 80. As of 5 July 2017, 21 victims have been formally identified and their families informed. A handful more are missing and assumed dead, Please discuss at the Talk page and gain consensus before adding these names. Abdeslam Sebbar (aged 77, 11th floor) Abufars Ibrahim (39, 23rd floor) Ali Yawar Jafari (81, 11th floor) Anthony Disson (British, 65, 22nd floor) Farah Hamdan (Moroccan, 31, in a stairwell between the 20th and 19th) Gloria Trevisan (Italy, 26, 23rd floor) Marco Gottardi (Italy, 26, 23rd floor) Husna Begum (22, floor ?) Mohammad Alhajali, 23, floor ? Jessica Urbanno, 2?, floor ? Isaac Paulos (5, 18th floor) Khadija Khalloufi (52, 17th floor) Leena Belkadi (Moroccan, 6 months, 20th floor) Malak Belkadi (Moroccan, 8, initially rescued, later died, 20th floor) Omar Belkadi (Moroccan, 32, 20th floor) Mo Tuccu (44) Mohammad Al Haj Ali (23, 14th floor) Rabeya Begum (64) Saber Neda, also known as Mohamed Amied Neda (57, 23rd floor) Ya-Haddy Sisi Saye also known as Khadija Saye (Gambia, 24, 20th floor) Sheila Smith (84, 17th floor) Vincent Chiejina (60, 16th floor) Some names have not yet been released to the public, at the families' request. The police said they were using "every imaginable source" of information "from government agencies to fast food companies" to identify casualties, but did not expect a final figure until 2018 when the search and recovery operation is over. On 28 June, the authorities stated that there were known survivors from 106 of the tower's 129 flats; eighteen people among the occupants of these flats were reported as dead or missing presumed dead, whereas most of those killed were said to have been in the remaining 23 flats between the 11th and 23rd floors. Some people from lower floors may have tried to move up the building, and it is thought a number of people may have ended up in one flat. Some victims were identified from twenty-six 999 calls made from inside the 23 flats. The missing include many children including Amaya Ahmedin (aged 3, 19th floor), Biruk Habtom (aged 12), Fathia Ibrahim, Fatima Choucair, Firdaws Hashim, Hania Ibrahim, Jeremiah Dean (2, 14th floor), Jessica Urbano Ramiez (12, 20th floor), Mehdi El-Wahabi (8), Mierna Choucair, Yaqub Hashim, Yayha Hashim and Zeinab Choucair. The youngest of those known killed, Leena Belkadi, was just 6 months old. One victim died in hospital on 15 June due to inhalation of fire fumes. Additionally, one survivor suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fire. A total of 151 homes were destroyed in the tower and surrounding area. The incident ranks as the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the start of the 20th century, when detailed records began. The death toll is higher than the Bradford City stadium fire of 1985, which killed 56 people. https://en.yabiladi.com/articles/details/55093/grenfell-tower-youngest-victim-moroccan.html https://www.rt.com/uk/392547-grenfell-victims-identified-police/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40327357 http://news.sky.com/story/isaac-paulous-aged-five-identified-as-victim-of-grenfell-tower-fire-10928606 https://www.newsoneplace.com/14387061701/grenfell-tower-victim-identified https://www.newsoneplace.com/14795471701/grenfell-tower-victim-identified http://www.ghanavisions.com/news/world/155984-grenfell-tower-victim-identified-by-her-dental-records.html

79.77.193.0 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

79.77.221.247 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Live Video used as Reference

There is a link to Sky News Live YouTube Feed. It is used as a reference in 6 different places. Clearly, live video is not a static reference and cannot corroborate the text. Thankfully in most cases, there are additional references. Where there are not, I can substitute better ones. David Crayford (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I got all the Live Sky News links. All remaining "sky" refs are static pages. David Crayford (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Updates

Updates

79.77.217.86 (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

92.20.198.92 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hyper-update

79.77.193.0 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mega-update

79.77.221.247 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Uber-update

links
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/europe/grenfell-tower-fire-risk/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/05/europe/grenfell-tower-fire-last-remains/index.html

79.77.207.102 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest news

Trish pt7 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Watson Street fire 1905

Too early to do anything yet but editors might want to listen to this upcoming BBC podcast about a major fire in Glasgow which led to building regulation changes. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I did add it, (just your text , little reorganised) but this fire deserves an article on its own aswell, it was a real major fire gone into oblivion WillemienH (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)